Hi Éric, Thank you very much for your review!
We just submitted revision -12, which aims at addressing the comments received from the IESG and related reviewers: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-lwig-tcp-constrained-node-networks-12 Please find below our inline responses: > Ãric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-lwig-tcp-constrained-node-networks-11: Discuss > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this > introductory paragraph, however.) > > > Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html > for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lwig-tcp-constrained-node-networks/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > DISCUSS: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Thank you for the work put into this document. It is an important topic > and the > document is both easy to ready and detailed. Thank you for your kind words. > Please find below one trivial DISCUSS point and a couple of non-blocking > COMMENT points but please also check: - Ines Robles IoT directorate > review: > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-lwig-tcp-constrained-node-networks-11-iotdir-telechat-robles-2020-10-20/ > - Bernie Volz Internet directorate review: > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-lwig-tcp-constrained-node-networks-11-intdir-telechat-volz-2020-10-20/ Yes, the latest revision is intended to address the comments received on -11, including those by Inés and Bernie. > I hope that this helps to improve the document, It did help, thank you. > Regards, > > -éric > > == DISCUSS == > > Please replace all RFC 2460 references to RFC 8200. Trivial to fix ;-) Done. ;-) > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > == COMMENTS == > > Should a reference to RFC 8900 be added in the MTU discussion in section > 4.1 ? A reference to RFC 8900 has been added accordingly. > -- Section 2 -- > As noted by many, the BCP 14 boiler plate is the old one and the normative > terminology is not used in this informational document. => remove it ? Agreed. We removed Section 2. Thanks, Carles (on behalf of the authors) _______________________________________________ Lwip mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip
